Coupling between the phase of a neural oscillation or bodily rhythm with behavior: Evaluation of different statistical procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing experimental evidence points at relationships between the phase of a cortical or bodily oscillation and behavior, using various circular statistical tests. Here, we systematically compare the performance (sensitivity, False Positive rate) of four circular statistical tests (some commonly used, i.e. Phase Opposition Sum, Circular Logistic Regression, others less common, i.e., Watson test, Modulation Index). We created semi-artificial datasets mimicking real two-alternative forced choice experiments with 30 participants, where we imposed a link between a simulated binary behavioral outcome with the phase of a physiological oscillation. We systematically varied the strength of phase-outcome coupling, the coupling mode (1:1 to 4:1), the overall number of trials and the relative number of trials in the two outcome conditions. We evaluated different strategies to estimate phase-outcome coupling chance level, as well as significance at the individual or group level. The results show that the Watson test, although seldom used in the experimental literature, is an excellent first intention test, with a good sensitivity and low False Positive rate, some sensitivity to 2:1 coupling mode and low computational load. Modulation Index, initially designed for continuous variables but that we find useful to estimate coupling between phase and a binary outcome, should be preferred if coupling mode is higher than 2:1. Phase Opposition Sum, coupled with a resampling procedure, is the only test retaining a good sensitivity in the case of a large unbalance in the number of occurrences of the two behavioral outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".